|
On July 10 2009 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions?
Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status
Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. [IAC]
Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC]
Rule 108. Mercenaries, as defined in Additional Protocol I, do not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC]
For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
|
On July 10 2009 05:15 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions? Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. [IAC] Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] Rule 108. Mercenaries, as defined in Additional Protocol I, do not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC]
That doesn't look any of the Geneva Conventions to me.
For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
Again, when did the desire for monetary gain become the prime motivator?
|
On July 10 2009 05:14 daz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 04:54 Trezeguet23 wrote:
The whole ticking time bomb situation thing is utter bullshit. It has never happened before and never will happen. There is not excuse to torture anyone ever. Even if we "know" they have info, if we torture them to get it, how do we know that what we have gotten from them is true?
Torture is the biggest piece of shit ever.
Also, water boarding is torture. If you don't agree, you are an idiot who feels that drowning is no worse than a stubbed toe. what is such utter bullshit about it? is it so incredibly impossible to imagine that lets say one of the terrorists involved in planning 9/11 could have been captured. Why is that so impossible? Members of these organizations are being captured regularly. I think it is not only possible but in fact highly likely that some of them are involved in plans to harm the united states. I mean if they arent then what the fuck are they doing in terrorist organizations anyway. What do you think these people do all day?
from what i've heard and read the time bomb situation is just not realistic, it isn't 24 jack bauer situations going on out there, and even if it were torture wouldn't be the best method because it takes a long time to break someone down, sleep deprivation, doing water boarding over and over like they did previously 150+ times or whatever other methods, slapping people around, throwing them against walls takes time. it is faster to outsmart the person you are interrogating and i would say usually more reliable, cops also don't torture or coerce people because it doesn't yield reliable information, and can force false confessions despite not being admissible, they use their experience, smarts, and sometimes lies/bluffs to get information. also, i believe the enhanced interrogation techniques had only been used for a few years, and have not been used since 2005, or at least the implementation was repealed.
this guy had testified at the senate judiciary hearings on enhanced interrogation techniques, actually a good video which is probably on cspan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html
|
On July 10 2009 05:32 XoXiDe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:14 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 04:54 Trezeguet23 wrote:
The whole ticking time bomb situation thing is utter bullshit. It has never happened before and never will happen. There is not excuse to torture anyone ever. Even if we "know" they have info, if we torture them to get it, how do we know that what we have gotten from them is true?
Torture is the biggest piece of shit ever.
Also, water boarding is torture. If you don't agree, you are an idiot who feels that drowning is no worse than a stubbed toe. what is such utter bullshit about it? is it so incredibly impossible to imagine that lets say one of the terrorists involved in planning 9/11 could have been captured. Why is that so impossible? Members of these organizations are being captured regularly. I think it is not only possible but in fact highly likely that some of them are involved in plans to harm the united states. I mean if they arent then what the fuck are they doing in terrorist organizations anyway. What do you think these people do all day? from what i've heard and read the time bomb situation is just not realistic, it isn't 24 jack bauer situations going on out there, and even if it were torture wouldn't be the best method because it takes a long time to break someone down, sleep deprivation, doing water boarding over and over like they did previously 150+ times or whatever other methods, slapping people around, throwing them against walls takes time. it is faster to outsmart the person you are interrogating and i would say usually more reliable, cops also don't torture or coerce people because it doesn't yield reliable information, and can force false confessions despite not being admissible, they use their experience, smarts, and sometimes lies/bluffs to get information. also, i believe the enhanced interrogation techniques had only been used for a few years, and have not been used since 2005, or at least the implementation was repealed. this guy had testified at the senate judiciary hearings on enhanced interrogation techniques, actually a good video which is probably on cspan. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html
i think you guys are nitpicking. obviously the exact situation of a ticking time bomb jack bauer TV type of shit is unrealistic but if you are saying that its unrealistic for people involved in an organization whose main purpose is to do harm to a country to have knowledge about plans said organization has to do damage to said country, then i dont know what the fuck is wrong with you
|
On July 10 2009 05:36 daz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:32 XoXiDe wrote:On July 10 2009 05:14 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 04:54 Trezeguet23 wrote:
The whole ticking time bomb situation thing is utter bullshit. It has never happened before and never will happen. There is not excuse to torture anyone ever. Even if we "know" they have info, if we torture them to get it, how do we know that what we have gotten from them is true?
Torture is the biggest piece of shit ever.
Also, water boarding is torture. If you don't agree, you are an idiot who feels that drowning is no worse than a stubbed toe. what is such utter bullshit about it? is it so incredibly impossible to imagine that lets say one of the terrorists involved in planning 9/11 could have been captured. Why is that so impossible? Members of these organizations are being captured regularly. I think it is not only possible but in fact highly likely that some of them are involved in plans to harm the united states. I mean if they arent then what the fuck are they doing in terrorist organizations anyway. What do you think these people do all day? from what i've heard and read the time bomb situation is just not realistic, it isn't 24 jack bauer situations going on out there, and even if it were torture wouldn't be the best method because it takes a long time to break someone down, sleep deprivation, doing water boarding over and over like they did previously 150+ times or whatever other methods, slapping people around, throwing them against walls takes time. it is faster to outsmart the person you are interrogating and i would say usually more reliable, cops also don't torture or coerce people because it doesn't yield reliable information, and can force false confessions despite not being admissible, they use their experience, smarts, and sometimes lies/bluffs to get information. also, i believe the enhanced interrogation techniques had only been used for a few years, and have not been used since 2005, or at least the implementation was repealed. this guy had testified at the senate judiciary hearings on enhanced interrogation techniques, actually a good video which is probably on cspan. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html i think you guys are nitpicking. obviously the exact situation of a ticking time bomb jack bauer TV type of shit is unrealistic but if you are saying that its unrealistic for people involved in an organization whose main purpose is to do harm to a country to have knowledge about plans said organization has to do damage to said country, then i dont know what the fuck is wrong with you
hm im not arguing with you if they actually had information, i dont think thats the issue, they may or may not, its how they got that information and whether or not it was useful.
|
On July 10 2009 05:32 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:15 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions? Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. [IAC] Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] Rule 108. Mercenaries, as defined in Additional Protocol I, do not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] That doesn't look any of the Geneva Conventions to me.Show nested quote +For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
Again, when did the desire for monetary gain become the prime motivator?
I'm not sure you realize, but every terrorists family gets paid quite well upon their death. Monetary gain isn't the sole motivator, but it does play a role. In any event, the point stands in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions the insurgents we face in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered Mercenaries and as such have no legal rights in international law.
The abstract notion of universal rights when confronted with life and death simply do not exist. To treat the battlefield as a crime scene is both ludicrous and a cause for mutinize insurrection among our own troops because you are putting them in needless harm. We are fighting a WAR on the battlefield not prancing around in smocks playing CSI.
|
On July 10 2009 05:41 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:32 Mindcrime wrote:On July 10 2009 05:15 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions? Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. [IAC] Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] Rule 108. Mercenaries, as defined in Additional Protocol I, do not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] That doesn't look any of the Geneva Conventions to me.For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
Again, when did the desire for monetary gain become the prime motivator? I'm not sure you realize, but every terrorists family gets paid quite well upon their death. Monetary gain isn't the sole motivator, but it does play a role.
You are asserting that every insurgent has some benefactor who will pay his family well upon his death? And that this is a major motivator? Do you have proof of this? There are mercenaries in the area, but there is absolutely no reason to think it is the norm.
In any event, the point stands in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions the insurgents we face in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered Mercenaries and as such have no legal rights in international law.
You said the Geneva Conventions denied mercenaries such rights, but you didn't quote the Geneva Conventions. Where in the Geneva Conventions is this said about mercenaries?
|
On July 10 2009 05:52 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:41 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 05:32 Mindcrime wrote:On July 10 2009 05:15 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions? Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. [IAC] Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] Rule 108. Mercenaries, as defined in Additional Protocol I, do not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] That doesn't look any of the Geneva Conventions to me.For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
Again, when did the desire for monetary gain become the prime motivator? I'm not sure you realize, but every terrorists family gets paid quite well upon their death. Monetary gain isn't the sole motivator, but it does play a role. You are asserting that every insurgent has some benefactor who will pay his family well upon his death? And that this is a major motivator? Do you have proof of this? There are mercenaries in the area, but there is absolutely no reason to think it is the norm. Show nested quote +In any event, the point stands in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions the insurgents we face in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered Mercenaries and as such have no legal rights in international law. You said the Geneva Conventions denied mercenaries such rights, but you didn't quote the Geneva Conventions. Where in the Geneva Conventions is this said about mercenaries?
Do I have to hand-hold you? The only rights in the Geneva Convention are levied upon Prisoners of War. The conventions explicitly make clear who is eligible to be a POW. The Conventions aren't that long, I'm sure someone as smart as yourself can peruse the document and come to the same conclusion, the only conclusion within the Conventions.
P.S. You are biased in that you are basing the definition of Mercenary on the arbitrary usage in the dictionary. The Conventions clearly define the term mercenary. If you cannot clearly understand what is being conveyed, then that's your fault not mine.
|
On July 09 2009 15:00 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote:
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless It's harmless if you dont mind people making you feel like you're going to drown in order to extract information from you that you may or may not have after being detained without question.
Harmless? I guess you were ironic but anyways, here goes
It's maybe harmless physically at first, but you will surely experience mental distress after the event in form of anxiety/depression. Maybe PTSD too
This anxiety will produce an increased production of chatecholamins (fight/flight hormones) in your body which in the long run will damage you physically. So no it's not harmless
|
On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
Waterboarding is a pretty gross euphanism. It should be called "monitored drowning". Or maybe we can call electrocution "conduction therapy".
|
On July 10 2009 02:04 FragKrag wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 19:24 Vharox wrote:On July 09 2009 15:17 eXigent. wrote:On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote:
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless you should watch a few youtube videos of people volunteering to be waterboarded. None of them last more than 15seconds before panicing and demanding to stop. Seems like torture to me. That's not true. I posted a video from youtube in the waterboarding thread where a guy goes 25 minutes. Not that its right to do it or anything. Buuut it is definitely doable for more than 15 seconds lol. Um maybe because that person is fully prepared and has been through training?
On July 10 2009 02:19 B1nary wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 19:24 Vharox wrote:On July 09 2009 15:17 eXigent. wrote:On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote:
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless you should watch a few youtube videos of people volunteering to be waterboarded. None of them last more than 15seconds before panicing and demanding to stop. Seems like torture to me. That's not true. I posted a video from youtube in the waterboarding thread where a guy goes 25 minutes. Not that its right to do it or anything. Buuut it is definitely doable for more than 15 seconds lol. Of course there are people who, either naturally or through training, can take it for longer periods, just as there are people who won't talk even if you beat them to death. But in general, people don't particularly enjoy the feeling of being drowned.
That wasn't my point?
|
drumroll please
On July 10 2009 04:51 Aegraen wrote:
None of you should be talking about how intelligence apparatus work. You all have not a single clue.
I think I am the only person on these boards who actually works and studies in an intelligence capacity. The amount of ignorance displayed about actual intelligence work on this board is astonishing. Waterboarding I can assure you, accounted for less than 0.0001% of all intelligence gathered.
and there we have it
|
Well if you consider all the knowledge mankind has attained since the dawn of time, he's probably right that less than 0.0001% of that came from someone waterboarding someone else
|
On July 10 2009 06:00 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:52 Mindcrime wrote:On July 10 2009 05:41 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 05:32 Mindcrime wrote:On July 10 2009 05:15 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions? Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. [IAC] Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] Rule 108. Mercenaries, as defined in Additional Protocol I, do not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] That doesn't look any of the Geneva Conventions to me.For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
Again, when did the desire for monetary gain become the prime motivator? I'm not sure you realize, but every terrorists family gets paid quite well upon their death. Monetary gain isn't the sole motivator, but it does play a role. You are asserting that every insurgent has some benefactor who will pay his family well upon his death? And that this is a major motivator? Do you have proof of this? There are mercenaries in the area, but there is absolutely no reason to think it is the norm. In any event, the point stands in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions the insurgents we face in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered Mercenaries and as such have no legal rights in international law. You said the Geneva Conventions denied mercenaries such rights, but you didn't quote the Geneva Conventions. Where in the Geneva Conventions is this said about mercenaries? Do I have to hand-hold you? The only rights in the Geneva Convention are levied upon Prisoners of War. The conventions explicitly make clear who is eligible to be a POW. The Conventions aren't that long, I'm sure someone as smart as yourself can peruse the document and come to the same conclusion, the only conclusion within the Conventions.
I'm looking at the Geneva Conventions ratified by the US and not seeing the word "mercenary" or "mercenaries" anywhere. I hope you're not referring to some irrelevant treaty not ratified by the US. However...
Convention 3, Article 5
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Simply declaring that someone who has not been before a tribunal is a mercenary or "unlawful combatant" is against the law.
And we've also got GC 4 Article 5 which refutes your "no rights" assertion.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
P.S. You are biased in that you are basing the definition of Mercenary on the arbitrary usage in the dictionary. The Conventions clearly define the term mercenary. If you cannot clearly understand what is being conveyed, then that's your fault not mine.
In both of those definitions you posted, private gain being the motivator was a necessity in both. If you're not fighting for private gain then you're not a fucking mercenary.
|
On July 10 2009 06:15 travis wrote:drumroll please Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 04:51 Aegraen wrote:
None of you should be talking about how intelligence apparatus work. You all have not a single clue.
I think I am the only person on these boards who actually works and studies in an intelligence capacity. The amount of ignorance displayed about actual intelligence work on this board is astonishing. Waterboarding I can assure you, accounted for less than 0.0001% of all intelligence gathered.
and there we have it
You are quite aware that the context was within the whole intelligence community? Waterboarding isn't a measure to be used as I've said earlier, on those of lesser stature and hierachy.
Most intel that is gathered comes from OSINT. HUMINT specifically within interrogation methods accounts on the whole for quite the low amount however, what is gathered is extremely coveted and valuable because often times that is the only means in which to acquire the information. COMINT, SIGINT, MASINT, ELINT, OSINT, TELINT, etc. cannot achieve the means to acquire said information.
As I've put it before, do not talk about such things in which you have limited to no understanding, to be quite blunt.
|
Major props to Panetta. I really love that guy, as does just about everyone else.
He ran a very nice lecture series with his wife at Montery CSU. He brought together great minds for the series, my favorites are the ones with James Carville. Everyone from Bill O'Reily to Obama thinks he is an amazing individual, one of the few appointees no one complained about. Its really big of him to admit the CIA's faults and problems.
|
I looked at page one and assumed this would be an Aegraen troll fest at page 3.
I was right.
|
On July 10 2009 06:19 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 06:15 travis wrote:drumroll please On July 10 2009 04:51 Aegraen wrote:
None of you should be talking about how intelligence apparatus work. You all have not a single clue.
I think I am the only person on these boards who actually works and studies in an intelligence capacity. The amount of ignorance displayed about actual intelligence work on this board is astonishing. Waterboarding I can assure you, accounted for less than 0.0001% of all intelligence gathered.
and there we have it You are quite aware that the context was within the whole intelligence community? Waterboarding isn't a measure to be used as I've said earlier, on those of lesser stature and hierachy. Most intel that is gathered comes from OSINT. HUMINT specifically within interrogation methods accounts on the whole for quite the low amount however, what is gathered is extremely coveted and valuable because often times that is the only means in which to acquire the information. COMINT, SIGINT, MASINT, ELINT, OSINT, TELINT, etc. cannot achieve the means to acquire said information. As I've put it before, do not talk about such things in which you have limited to no understanding, to be quite blunt.
my point is that we have a million other ways to get information
we shouldn't be torturing people based upon speculation and theories of what might be learned.
not to mention waterboarding wasn't even the only technique used on people.
You tell me not to talk about such things in which I have limited understanding.
I understand torture just fine, and I understand what it means for our intelligence agencies to endorse it.
The people that are torturing in these situations are motivated by more than just a desire to get information. You can't torture someone over and over without having intense hatred for the person, or desire to see them suffer.
The U.S. spends more money on intelligence gathering than any other nation in the world. We have the most sophisticated equipment, training, etc. We do not need to be setting a precedent of torturing based on speculation. It's fucking terrible!.
CIA interrogators used waterboarding at least 266 times on two top al Qaeda suspects, according to a Bush-era Justice Department memo released by the Obama administration.
Interrogators also waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. Mohammed is believed to be the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
fucking disgusting.
|
On July 10 2009 06:32 L wrote:
I looked at page one and assumed this would be an Aegraen troll fest at page 3.
I was right.
yeah it started off as a debate with me and aegrean totally just hijacked this shit. i give the guy props for being so inflammatory
|
this waterboarding stuff is horrible and its definitely torture..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
